3$\-(jdV3 

fs\  2ibr 


THE  RECORDS  OF  THE 
CIVIL  SERVICE  COMMISSION 


REPORT  OF  A  SPECIAL  COMMITTEE 

OF  THE 

National  Civil-Service  Reform  League, 


1900. 

DIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 

SEP  3  0  1915 


35) 

)\)2J2>r 


Report  of  the  Committee  on  Access  to  the  Rec¬ 
ords  of  the  Civil  Service  Commission. 


To  the  National  Civil  Service  Reform  League  : 

SOME  two  weeks  after  the  President’s  order  of  May  29th, 
1899,  the  United  States  Civil  Service  Commission,  for  the 
first  time  in  its  history,  refused,  by  a  vote  of  two  to  one  (its 
President,  Mr.  Procter,  dissenting  and  stating  his  reasons  for 
dissent  in  a  carefully  prepared  and  out-spoken  minute)  to  per¬ 
mit  access  to  its  records  to  a  representative  of  the  League,  for 
the  rather  vague  reasons  that  to  grant  this  “  would  be  against 
public  policy  and  not  in  the  interests  of  the  public  service.” 
The  League,  represented  in  this  instance  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Civil  Service  Reform  Association  of  the  District  of 
Columbia,  had  asked  for  data  with  reference  to  reported  vio¬ 
lation  of  the  rules  in  the  Appraiser’s  Department  at  New 
York,  to  removals  at  certain  of  the  larger  Post  Offices  and 
Custom  Houses,  and  to  the  nominations  made  hy  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  the  Treasury  for  non-competitive  examinations  under 
the  amended  rules  of  July  27,  1897. 

Why  a  disclosure  of  these  matters  should  have  been 
regarded  as  peculiarly  impolitic  at  that  particular  time  can  be 
matter  of  conjecture  only,  but  after  some  four  months  of 
intermittent  correspondence,  and  a  hearing  given  the  Secretary 
of  the  League  in  the  latter  part  of  October,  1899,  access  was 
again  granted  to  all  such  records  as  the  League  had  ever  de¬ 
sired  to  inspect.  The  decision  of  the  Commission  was  set 
forth  in  the  following  letter : 

United  States  Civil  Service  Commission. 

Washington,  November  2,  1899. 

Mr.  George  McAneny, 

Secretary  National  Civil  Service  Reform  League. 

Sir  : 

In  response  to  your  communications  of  October  7  and  30,  you  are 
informed  that  the  Commission  will  allow  an  agent  of  your  League  access 
to  the  records  of  the  Commission  as  requested  by  you,  as  follows: 


4 


1.  Figures  and  statistics  relative  to  the  operation  of  the  civil  service 
act  and  rules  as  derived  from  the  periodical  reports  of  appointing 
officers. 

2.  The  names  of  persons  appointed,  promoted  or  transferred  to,  or 
reinstated  in,  or  removed  or  resigned  from  positions  in  the  classified 
service. 

3.  Files  relating  to  investigations  that  have  been  completed  or 
closed  touching  on  the  operation  of  the  civil  service  act  and  rules, — with 
the  modification  that  the  request  shall  specify  the  particular  file  desired, 
and  that  such  file  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Commissioners  for  their 
approval  before  access  is  permitted.  This  restriction  is  made  for  pro¬ 
tection  of  employees  and  others  who  may  have  written  to  the  Commis¬ 
sion  in  confidence. 

4.  The  minutes  of  the  Commission  kept  in  pursuance  of  section  2 
of  the  civil  service  act. 

Very  respectfully, 

John  R.  Procter,  President . 

V 

Thereupon  the  League  continued  its  investigations  for 
about  a  month,  and,  in  the  Spring  of  the  present  year,  re¬ 
sumed  them,  until  it  had  ascertained  and  tabulated  facts 
which  sufficiently  showed,  inter  alia ,  the  practical  results  of 
the  President’s  order  of  May  29th,  1899,  from  its  date  to 
January  1st,  1900.  For  reasons  set  forth  in  our  second  letter 
hereinafter  contained,  it  was  subsequently  determined  to  bring 
the  tabulation  of  these  results  down  to  May  29th,  1900;  so  as 
to  portray  the  working  of  the  order  in  practice  during  a  full 
year  ;  but,  shordy  after  this  purpose  on  the  League’s  part  be¬ 
came  apparent,  the  denial  of  access  was  repeated.  On  July 
14  a  new  minute  was  adopted  closing  all  records  to  any  ex¬ 
cept  the  Commission’s  own  employees,  Mr.  Procter  again 
dissenting,  and  the  League’s  investigations  were  necessarily 
suspended.  To  test  the  scope  and  meaning  of  this  minute  the 
League  on  July  23  made  a  written  request  for  permission  to 
examine  certain  records  clearly  covered  by  the  terms  of  the 
letter  of  November  2nd.  This  was  refused  after  a  long  delay 
and  several  inconclusive  replies  on  the  part  of  the  Commis¬ 
sion.  The  undersigned  had  been  meantime  appointed  a 
Special  Committee  to  take  such  further  action  on  behalf  of 
the  League  as  might  seem  appropriate  in  the  premises ;  as 
soon  as  informed  of  the  Commission’s  definitive  refusal,  we 
addressed  it  the  following  letter : 


s 


New  York,  September  12,  1900. 
To  the  United  States  Civil  Service  Commission, 

Gentlemen  : 

On  July  23rd  last,  the  Secretary  of  the  National  Civil  Service  Re¬ 
form  League,  Mr,  George  McAneny,  requested  permission  for  a  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  League  to  examine  such  records  of  the  Commission  as 
would  show : 

“  (1)  The  number  of  persons  appointed  from  eligible  lists  to 
competitive  positions  in  the  several  Executive  Departments  and 
offices  during  the  period  from  May  29,  1899,  to  December  31, 
1899. 

“  (2)  The  number  of  persons  appointed  under  temporary  certi¬ 
ficates  to  competitive  positions  during  the  same  period. 

“(3)  The  number  of  persons  appointed  to  excepted  positions 
not  subject  to  non-competitive  examination  during  the  same  period. 

“  (4)  The  names  of  persons  holding  positions  in  the  Internal 
Revenue  and  Custom  services  (excepting  storekeepers  and  gaugers) 
who  have  been  appointed  since  May  29,  1899,  or  who  were  ap¬ 
pointed  prior  to  that  date  and  examined  after  it,  showing  in  each 
case,  (a)  the  date  of  appointment  or  nomination,  (b)  the  date  (where 
entered)  of  the  request  of  the  Department  for  examination,  (c)  the 
date  of  examination  and  (d)  the  rating  received  in  percentage.” 

At  the  same  time  Mr.  McAneny  further  requested  on  behalf  of  the 
League  that  its  representive  might  be  permitted  to  ascertain  whether  six 
specified  parsons  were  “still  in  the  Customs  Service  ;  if  not,  at  what 
dates  they  were  separated  therefrom.” 

On  November  2,  preceding  this  request,  you  had  informed  the 
League  that  its  agents  would  be  allowed  access  to  your  records,  includ¬ 
ing  such  as  would  show,  inter  alia  : 

“  1.  Figures  and  statistics  relative  to  the  operation  of  the  civil 
service  act  and  rules  as  derived  from  the  periodical  reports  of  ap¬ 
pointing  officers. 

“2.  The  names  of  persons  appointed,  promoted  or  transferred 
to,  or  reinstated  in,  or  removed  or  resigned  from  positions  in  the 
classified  service.” 

Prior  to  the  incident  leading  to  the  correspondence,  of  which  your 
letter  of  November  2  formed  part,  the  Commission  had  acted  consist¬ 
ently  upon  a  principle  thus  stated  by  your  President  in  an  official 
minute  : 

“Nothing  so  much  fosters  the  spoils  system  as  secrecy  in  the 

administration  of  patronage . People  have  a  right 

to  know  what  their  officials  are  doing,  and  if  the  records  are  closed 
to  their  inspection  they  will  imagine  evils  which  do  not  exist.” 

In  the  language  of  its  Eighth  Report,  published  during  the  admin¬ 
istration  of  President  Harrison  by  Messrs.  Charles  D.  Lyman  (now  Ap¬ 
pointment  Clerk  of  the  Treasury  Department),  Theodore  Roosevelt  (now 


6 


Governor  of  New  York  and  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency)  and 
Hugh  S.  Thompson  : 

“  One  of  the  chief  aims  of  the  Commission  is  to  keep  the 
public  thoroughly  informed  of  the  workings  of  the  law,  .... 
to  keep  the  public  confident  of  the  honesty  with  which  the  law  is 
administered.”  .... 

“  The  books  and  records  of  the  Commission  and  of  all  the  local 

Boards  are  open  to  any  responsible  person . No  fraud  can 

be  committed  without  leaving  a  record  by  which  it  can  be  found 
out.” 

Investigations  made  by  the  League  into  the  immediate  effects  of  the 
President’s  order  of  May  29,  1899,  which  was  the  first  act  of  any  Presi¬ 
dent  since  the  enactment  of  the  Civil  Service  Law  whereby  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  Merit  System  to  the  Federal  Service  was  sensibly  curtailed, 
led  on  June  13,  1899,  to  the  discovery  that  a  majority  of  the  present 
Commission  appeared  to  dissent  from  the  views  thus  expressed  by 
Messrs.  Lyman,  Roosevelt  and  Thompson,  and  that  the  Commission,  as 
well  as  the  President,  had  seemingly  adopted  a  new  policy. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  League’s  regret  at  this  change  in  the 
Commission’s  course,  it  adapted  its  action  to  the  views  expressed  in  the 
Commission’s  letter  of  November  2,  above  quoted.  The  information 
for  which  it  subsequently  asked,  from  time  to  time,  was  precisely  such 
as  the  Commission  had  then  announced  itself  ready  to  afford;  moreover,  in 
obtaining  this  information,  it  was  careful  to  guard  against  imposing  any 
expense  on  the  Government  or  interfering  in  any  wise  with  the  current 
work  of  the  office.  On  July  23,  it  requested  leave  to  ascertain,  at  its 
own  cost,  from  the  very  records  mentioned  in  the  Commission’s  letter  of 
November  2,  certain  facts  which  were  evidently  calculated  to  shed  light 
upon  the  operation  of  “  the  Civil  Service  Act  and  Rules  ”  since  the  Presi¬ 
dent’s  order  of  May  29,  1899.  But  this  request,  after  along  delay,  has 
been  finally  refused,  and,  consequently,  at  a  joint  meeting  of  the  General 
and  Executive  Committees  of  the  League  we  were  directed  to  lay  before 
you  and  the  public,  appropriate  representations  respecting  this  refusal. 

We  submit  that  officers  of  the  United  States,  whatever  their  rank  or 
duties,  are  servants  of  the  American  people  ;  that  they  receive  the  peo¬ 
ple’s  pay  and  spend  the  people’s  money  ;  that  their  business  is  to  give 
effect  to  the  people’s  will  and  protect  the  people’s  interest  ;  and  that 
from  their  masters  they  have  no  proper  secrets;  what  they  do  or  leave 
undone,  in  the  work  they  are  employed  or  paid  to  do,  cocerns  all 
Americans  and  can  rightfully  be  hidden  from  none.  To  this  elementary 
principle  of  free  government  there  are,  indeed,  certain  recognized  quali¬ 
fications,  justified  by  the  exigency  of  war  or  diplomacy,  or  the  avoidance 
of  needless  publicity  for  scandalous  or  confidential  matters.  With  these, 
however,  we  have  no  concern,  for,  in  the  present  case,  no  such  consider¬ 
ations  apply  ;  the  information  asked  relates  to  no  secret  of  State,  to  no 
question  of  individual  morals  or  private  live.  The  League  wishes  to  dis¬ 
cover,  and,  if  need  be,  to  publish,  results  of  certain  action  on  the  part 
of  the  President,  action  taken  in  the  discharge  of  his  official  duty  ; 
these  are  facts  which  in  the  public  interest  ought  to  be  made  known 


7 


just  as  soon  as  they  can  be  stated  with  certainty.  We  submit  that  your 
refusal  to  permit  the  League’s  representative  to  examine  public  records, 
creates  a  gratuitous  hinderance  to  the  people’s  knowing  the  truth  as  to 
the  conduct  of  their  own  officer. 

In  view  of  these  very  serious  considerations,  we  hope  that  you  will 
rescind  your  recent  action  on  this  subject,  and  remain, 

Yours  very  respectfully, 

Charles  J.  Bonaparte,  Edward  Cary,  Frederick  L.  Siddons, 
Special  Committee ,  National  Civil  Service  Reform  League. 

This  letter  led  to  further  correspondence  as  follows : 

United  States  Civil  Service  Commission. 

Washington,  D.  C.,  September  28,  1900. 

Messrs.  Charles  J.  Bonaparte,  Edward  Cary,  and 
Frederick  L.  Siddons, 

Special  Committee ,  National  Civil  Service  Reform  League , 
Gentlemen  : 

This  Commission  is  in  receipt  of  your  communication  of  September 
12,  transmitted  by  the  Secretary  of  the  National  Civil  .Service  Reform 
League,  submitting  certain  statements  concerning  the  furnishing  of  in¬ 
formation  to  your  League  by  the  Commission.  Reply  to  your  letter  has 
been  delayed  in  order  to  enable  the  Commission  to  determine  to  what 
extent  information  had  been  furnished  on  request  of  the  Secretary  of 
your  League  in  the  past. 

Apparently  your  communication  is  the  result  of  entire  misappre¬ 
hension,  as  this  Commission  is,  and  always  has  been,  in  full  harmony  and 
accord  with  what  is  said  and  quoted  in  your  letter  respecting  the  desira¬ 
bility  of  the  widest  possible  publicity  concerning  the  operation  of  the 
civil  service  law  and  rules  and  the  results  of  the  work  of  the  Commis¬ 
sion  ;  and  the  Commission  knows  of  no  action  on  its  part  which,  express¬ 
ly  or  by  any  implication,  could  be  regarded  as  contrary  to  these  views, 
and  is  not  aware  of  any  change  of  policy  whatever  in  this  respect ;  on 
the  contrary,  the  present  Commission  has  gone  further  in  the  direction 
of  publicity  than  any  previous  Commission,  notably  in  the  opening  to 
persons  in  interest  of  registers  which  had  previously  been  kept  secret,  so 
that  every  appointment  thereafter  might  be  thoroughly  scrutinized  in 
order  to  determine  whether  the  law  and  rules  in  this  respect  were  honestly 
and  fairly  administered,  and  a  much  wider  diversity  and  amount  of  infor¬ 
mation  has  been  published  in  the  annual  reports  of  this  Commission  than 
heretofore.  Moreover,  the  records  of  the  Commission  show  that  all  of 
the  great  amount  of  information  requested  by  the  Secretary  of  your 
League  since  June  13,  1899.  the  date  you  allege  as  the  beginning  of  a 
change  of  policy,  has  been  furnished  as  promptly  as  the  condition  of  the 
Commission’s  business  and  the  status  of  the  matters  involved  would  per¬ 
mit,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  last  request  made  at  the  end  of  his 
letter  under  date  of  July  23,  1900,  for  information  concerning  the  con¬ 
tinuance  of  six  persons  in  the  customs  service,  which  request  was  evi- 


8 


dently  overlooked  because  not  enumerated  with  the  requests  contained 
in  the  body  of  his  letter,  As  soon,  however,  as  this  item  was  brought 
to  the  attention  of  the  Commission,  steps  were  taken  to  furnish  the  infor¬ 
mation. 

On  July  14,  1  goo,  the  Commission  adopted  the  following  minute  : 

“Ordered,  That  hereafter  whenever  a  request  is  received  for 
information  concerning  the  Commission’s  work,  before  the  data  for 
such  information  has  been  prepared  for  the  annual  report  or  for 
other  public  use,  if  the  information  desired  be  such  as  to  justify  it, 
the  Commission  will  furnish  such  official  information  and  facts  as 
may  be  in  its  posession,  as  well  as  copies  of  its  files  and  records,  to 
such  outside  parties  or  organizations  as  request  the  same,  so  far  as 
the  good  of  the  public  service  and  the  limited  force  of  employees  of 
the  Commission  will  warrant. 

“It  is  further  ordered,  That  hereafter  no  person  who  is  not  a 
member  of  the  Commission’s  force  shall  have  access  to  its  files  and 
records  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  information  for  any  unofficial 
purpose.” 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  minute  again  emphasizes  the  purpose  of  the 
Commission  to  continue  to  furnish  all  possible  information  to  the  public, 
so  far  as  the  good  of  the  service  and  its  limited  force  of  employees  will 
warrant.  At  the  same  time,  because  of  the  embarrassment  the  Com¬ 
mission  has  suffered  throngh  the  action  of  persons  not  responsible  to  it 
who  have  from  time  to  time  obtained  almost  unrestricted  access  to  its 
files  and  records,  including  some  which  at  the  time  were  of  a  nature  which 
the  public  interest  demanded  should  not  then  be  made  generally  known, 
and  because  of  the  failure  of  the  precautions  which  the  Commission  had 
taken  to  prevent  improper  use  of  the  privileges  granted  such  persons, 
and  also  the  undue  interference  w'ith  the  transaction  of  its  current  busi¬ 
ness,  it  was  ordered  that  no  persons  not  members  of  the  Commission’s 
force  should  have  access  to  its  files  and  records  in  order  to  prepare  infor¬ 
mation  for  unofficial  purposes.  This  latter  provision  does  not  in  any 
way  curtail  or  abridge  the  opportunity  to  secure  all  proper  information 
concerning  the  operation  of  the  civil  service  law  and  rules,  and  it  is 
believed  that  through  it  the  Commission  will  be  relieved  from  the  em¬ 
barrassment  and  interference  with  its  work  heretofore  referred  to,  as  well 
as  the  further  liability  of  wide  misconception  and  misrepresentation  in 
regard  to  its  work  occasioned  by  the  many  errors  which  have  been  made 
heretofore  by  persons  engaged  in  compiling  information  who  had  little  or 
no  knowledge  of  the  Commission’s  work  and  consequently  were  prone 
to  fall  into  egregious  errors  concerning  it,  thus  prejudicing  and  rendering 
practically  valueless  their  results. 

Notwithstanding  the  statements  made  by  the  Secretary  of  your 
League,  the  Commission’s  files  and  records  show  that  substantially  all  of 
the  information  proper  to  be  furnished  to  the  public  which  was  requested 
in  his  letter  of  July  15,  had  already  been  furnished  to  him,  and  therefore 
he  was  advised,  under  date  of  September  8,  that  because  this  information 
had  been  furnished  and  because  of  the  urgency  of  the  public  business, 


9 

the  transaction  of  which  had  been  and  would  again  be  interfered  with 
by  the  presence  of  your  agent,  “  The  Commission  must  therefore  at 
present  decline  to  permit  your  representative  to  consult  the  records  as 
requested  in  your  letter  of  July  23.”  Inasmuch  as  your  Secretary  again 
requested,  under  date  of  September  12,  that  the  League’s  representative 
be  given  access  to  the  files  and  records  in  order  to  again  compile  the  in¬ 
formation,  he  was  informed  under  date  of  September  20,  in  pursuance 
of  the  minute  of  July  14  above  quoted,  how  the  information  desired 
might  be  secured  without  causing  the  public  interest  to  suffer  and  at  the 
same  time  furnishing  information  entitled  to  all  the  credit  given  to  that 
officially  promulgated  by  the  Commission,  as  it  would  be  prepared  by 
the  persons  most  competent  and  best  qualified  to  accurately  and  cor¬ 
rectly  compile  it. 

In  conclusion,  this  Commission  desires  it  to  be  distinctly  under¬ 
stood  that  the  files  and  records  showing  the  operation  of  the  civil  service 
law  and  rules  and  of  the  results  of  the  Commission’s  work  continue  to 
be  open  to  the  public  in  the  same  manner  and  to  the  same  degree  as  for¬ 
merly,  and  that  any  person  desiring  information  on  any  specific  point, 
not  incompatible  with  the  public  interest,  will  be  promptly  furnished 
therewith,  and  will  be  shown  the  file  and  record  in  relation  thereto  if 
desired  ;  but,  in  the  discretion  vested  in  the  Commission  as  the  respon¬ 
sible  custodian  of  its  files  and  records,  it  has  determined,  for  the  reasons 
herein  stated,  that  it  is  clearly  in  the  public  interest  that  this  publicity 
be  given  in  the  manner  herein  described,  and  that  it  clearly  is  not  in  the 
public  interest  to  allow  unrestricted  and  indiscriminate  access  to  its  files 
and  records. 

By  direction  of  the  Commission. 

Very  respectfully, 

John  B.  Harlow, 

A  ding  President. 


New  York,  October  18,  1900. 

To  the  United  States  Civil  Service  Commission, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Gentlemen  : 

Your  letter  of  September  28,  in  reply  to  ours  of  the  12th,  with  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  right  of  access  to  the  Commission’s  records,  informs  us 
that : 

“The  Commission  is  and  always  has  been  in  full  harmony  and 
accord  with  what  is  said  in  the  Committee’s  letter  ....  and  knows 
of  no  action  on  its  part  which  expressly  or  by  implication  could 
be  regarded  as  contrary  to  these  views,  or  of  any  change  of  policy 
whatever  in  this  respect.” 

This  information  is  very  gratifying,  but  we  must  add  that  it  is  no 
less  surprising.  The  policy  of  the  Commission  before  the  President’s 
Order  of  May  29,  1899,  was  described  by  Messrs.  Lyman,  Thompson 
and  Roosevelt,  as  follows  : 


IO 


“  The  books  and  records  of  the  Commission  and  of  all  the  local 
Boards  are  open  to  any  responsible  person.  No  fraud  can  be  com¬ 
mitted  without  leaving  a  record  by  which  it  can  be  found  out.” 

In  the  minute  of  July  14,  1900,  to  which  you  refer,  the  Commission 
declared  its  purpose  to  deny  thereafter  access  to  any  of  its  records  to  all 
persons  “  not  members  of  the  Commission’s  force”  and  added  : 

“  All  orders  or  minutes  heretofore  made  by  the  Commission  in 
conflict  with  the  provisions  of  this  order,  are  hereby  revoked.” 

This  latter  part  of  the  minute  you  did  not  quote. 

Until  enlightened  by  your  letter,  we  certainly  regarded  this  action  as 
indicating  a  definitive  abandonment  of  the  policy  of  Messrs.  Lyman, 
Thompson  and  Roosevelt  ;  and  no  less  certainly  we  were  not  alone  in 
that  opinion,  for,  on  June  13,  1899,  when,  for  the  first  time  in  its  history, 
the  Commission  denied  to  the  National  Civil  Service  Reform  League  ac¬ 
cess  to  its  files,  the  President  of  the  Commission  (Mr.  Proctor)  said  in 
a  dissenting  minute: 

“  The  vote  of  the  Commission  to  keep  its  records  secret  is  an 
absolute  reversal,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  Commis¬ 
sion,  of  a  policy  which  has  been  universally  commended  as  wise.” 

“  It  has  been  the  constant  public  boast  of  the  Commission  that 
its  records  are  subject  to  inspection  and  that  the  inspection  is  invited. 
I  can  conceive  of  nothing  which  is  calculated  to  do  more  damage 
to  the  work  of  the  Commission,  and  its  power  for  good,  than  the  re¬ 
fusal  to  permit  access  to  files  of  cases  in  which  action  has  been  com¬ 
pleted.” 

Since,  however,  you  say  that  “misapprehension”  exists  as  to  the 
consistency  of  the  present  with  the  past  practice  of  the  Commission  in 
this  respect,  we  respectfully  suggest  that  you  can  readily  remove  this 
“misapprehension:”  your  predecessors,  Messrs.  Lyman,  Thompson 
and  Roosevelt,  told  the  public :  “  The  books  and  records  of  the  Com¬ 

mission  ....  are  open  to  any  responsible  person  ;  ”  you  have  only  to 
tell  the  public  that  this  is  still  true. 

You  further  tell  us  that  : 

“Notwithstanding  the  statements  made  by  the  Secretary  of 
your  League,  the  Commission’s  files  and  records  show  that  substan¬ 
tially  all  the  information  proper  to  be  furnished  to  the  public,  which 
was  requested  in  his  letter  of  July  23,  had  already  been  furnished 
to  him.” 

This  passage  in  your  letter  has  caused  the  delay  in  its  acknowledg¬ 
ment  by  leading  the  Secretary  of  the  League  to  request  that  we  further 
examine  his  somewhat  voluminous  correspondence  with  the  Commission 
before  replying. 

While  we  do  not  understand  that  the  question  as  to  what  had  or  had 
not  been  secured  by  the  League  at  the  time  of  previous  examinations  of 
the  records  has  any  pertinence  to  the  question  really  at  issue,  we  feel 
that  the  facts  in  this  regard  may  be  briefly  stated  :  Having  obtained 
limited  access  to  the  files  of  the  Commission  in  November,  1899,  after  a 


tedious  delay  of  five  months,  the  League  ascertained  and  tabulated  facts 
which  showed,  with  certain  omissions,  the  practical  working  of  the 
President’s  order  of  May  29,  1899,  from  its  date  to  January  1,  1900. 
It  was  subsequently  decided  to  extend  this  investigation  until  the  results 
of  a  year’s  application  of  the  order  could  be  shown,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  both  to  complete  and  verify  the  work  already  done,  and  to  take  up 
certain  additional  subjects.  Before  the  new  work  was  finished  however, 
the  Commission’s  minute  of  July  14  was  adopted.  It  was  this  that 
led  to  the  Secretary’s  letter  of  July  23,  asking  directly  for  access 
to  records  clearly  covered  by  the  Commission’s  concession  of  Novem¬ 
ber,  1899. 

The  particular  omissions  to  be  covered  in  completing  tables  were  not 
specified  for  the  reason  that  this,  very  naturally,  was  not  understood  to 
be  necessary.  The  letter  was  met  with  a  repetition  of  the  denial  of  ac¬ 
cess  contained  in  the  minute  of  July  14.  Aside  from  the  question  of 
pertinency,  we  do  not  see  why  the  Commission  should  cite  the  incident 
of  July  23  as  a  reason  for  its  action  taken  nine  days  previously  ;  nor  can 
we  agree  with  the  Commission  if  it  holds  either  that  ‘  ‘substantially  all  the 
information”  to  be  gained  by  twelve  months’  experience  is  afforded  by  the 
first  seven ,  or  that  such  information  can  be  “  proper  to  be  furnished  to 
the  public”  when  it  relates  to  the  year  1899,  and  improper  when  it  relates 
to  the  year  1900. 

It  so  happens  that  the  additional  enquiry  referred  to  was  under¬ 
taken  by  reason  of  a  conversation  of  our  Secretary  with  the  President 
himself.  The  results  of  the  League’s  investigation,  although  incomplete, 
were  so  startling  that  Mr.  McAneny,  by  direction  of  the  Executive  Com¬ 
mittee,  obtained  an  audience  of  the  President,  and  asked  if  he  would 
give  consideration  to  a  memorial,  pointing  out  in  detail  the  deplorable 
consequences  of  his  Order,  and  praying  for  its  revocation.  The  Presi¬ 
dent  replied  courteously  that  he  would  consider  anything  the  League 
submitted,  but  that  he  regarded  any  criticism  of  the  Order’s  working  as 
premature  until  it  had  been  given  a  fair  trial.  The  League  then  deter¬ 
mined  to  await  the  expiration  of  the  full  year  from  May  29,  1899,  before 
preparing  its  intended  memorial,  and  circumstances  caused  some  further 
delay. 

Whilst  the  Commission  has  never  said  that  the  agents  employed  by 
the  League  in  its  investigations  are  not  “  responsible  persons,”  or  that 
in  any  specified  instance  the  work  of  the  Commission  has  been  impeded 
by  their  presence,  the  language  it  has  used  might  well  give  this  impres¬ 
sion  to  a  careless  reader.  We  deem  it  proper,  therefore,  to  mention  in 
this  letter  that  the  two  gentlemen,  Mr.  F.  B.  Tracy  and  Mr.  George  A. 
Warren,  successively  employed  by  the  League  for  these  purposes,  are, 
as  you  well  know,  men,  not  only  of  high  standing  and  excellent  reputa¬ 
tion,  but  also  exceptionally  competent  for  this  particular  work,  and  that 
tables  originally  prepared  by  them  for  the  League  are  published,  with 
certain  additions,  among  the  appendices  to  your  Sixteenth  Annual  Re¬ 
port.  The  League  has  been  glad  to  furnish  copies  of  such  tables  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Commission,  in  reciprocation  of  his  personal  cour¬ 
tesies,  whenever  they  have  been  desired,  and  has  been  gratified  to 
learn  that  they  have  proved  practically  useful. 


12 


In  conclusion,  permit  us  to  say  that  the  Commission’s  professed 
readiness  to  furnish  such  measure  of  information  as  “it  is  clearly  within 
the  public  interest  to  give  ”  and  “so  far  as  the  good  of  the  public  service 
and  its  limited  force  of  employees  will  warrant  ”  is,  again,  quite  beside 
the  question  at  issue.  Everyone  knows  that  you  have  confidential 
records  touching  the  character  and  antecedents  of  applicants  for  public 
office  ;  to  these  the  League  has  never  asked  or  desired  access.  Your 
remaining  records,  in  the  words  of  Messrs.  Lyman,  Thompson  and 
Roosevelt,  of  right  “are  open  to  any  responsible  person”,  and  for  this 
freedom  of  access  no  substitute  will,  we  venture  to  say,  be  accepted  as 
sufficient  by  public  opinion.  We  therefore  respectfully  renew  the  request 
of  our  previous  letter,  that  we  may  among  other  things,  complete,  in 
accordance  with  the  suggestion  of  the  President,  an  accurate  and  adequate 
statement  of  the  operation  and  consequences  of  his  order  of  May  29,  1899, 
after  it  had  been  given  a  fair  trial. 

We  remain,  Gentlemen,  Yours  very  truly, 

Charles  J.  Bonaparte,  Edward  Cary,  Frederick  L.  Siddons. 

Special  Committee,  National  Civil  Service  Reform  League. 


United  States  Civil  Service  Commission, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  Oct.  25,  1900. 

Messrs.  Charles  J.  Bonaparte,  Edward  Cary  and 
Frederick  L.  Siddons, 

Special  Committee ,  National  Civil  Service  Reform  League. 
Gentlemen  : 

This  Commission  is  in  receipt  of  your  communication  under  date  of 
October  18,  1900,  in  reply  to  the  Commission’s  communication  under 
date  of  September  28,  1900,  and  respectfully  advises  you  that,  after  a 
careful  reading,  your  communication  does  not  seem  to  contain  or  advance 
any  matters  upon  which  the  views  of  the  Commission  are  not  already 
expressed  in  its  communication  under  date  of  September  28,  1900. 

As  to  your  request  contained  in  your  communication  of  October  18, 
that  you  “may,  among  other  things,  complete,  in  accordance  with 
the  suggestion  of  the  President,  an  accurate  and  adequate  statement 
of  the  operation  and  consequences  of  his  order  of  May  29,  1899, 
after  it  had  been  given  a  fair  trial,”  your  attention  is  again  respectfully 
invited  to  the  Commission’s  communication  of  September  28  and  to  the 
Commission’s  communication  to  your  Secretary  under  date  of  September 
20,  1900,  wherein  it  is  pointed  out  in  detail  how  all  proper  information 
which  is  obtainable  from  the  Commission’s  records,  and  which  you  may 
desire  in  the  compiling  of  any  statements  which  you  may  be  preparing 
or  for  use  in  connection  with  any  investigations  which  you  may  be  prose¬ 
cuting,  may,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Commission  be  best  and  most  satis¬ 
factorily  obtained,  and  wherein  it  is  stated  that,  in  accordance  with  the 
method  pointed  out,  the  Commission  wili  always  be  glad  to  consider  re- 


*3 

quests  from  your  Secretary  for  such  information  as  the  League  may 
desire. 

Therefore,  if  you,  your  Secretary,  or  any  other  member  of  your 
League,  will  kindly  indicate  just  what  information  is  desired  at  this  time, 
the  Commission  will  be  pleased  to  have  the  same  furnished  in  accordance 
with  its  communications  of  September  20  and  September  27. 

By  direction  of  the  Commission  : 

Very  respectfully, 

John  B.  Harlow, 

Acting  President. 

We  deem  no  further  comment  necessary  on  the  Commis¬ 
sion’s  attitude  than  is  implied  in  plainly  stating  it.  The 
Commission  offers  to  let  its  own  employees  obtain  information 
for  the  League  from  its  files ;  it  refuses  to  let  the  employees 
of  the  League,  to  whose  character  and  fitness  for  such  work  it 
has  no  objection  to  offer,  obtain  this  information  at  the 
League’s  expense,  under  whatever  reasonable  regulations  may 
be  needful  to  prevent  interference  with  the  work  of  the  office, 
no  complaint  of  such  interference  having  ever  been  made  in 
the  past  or  being  made  now.  The  Commission  professes  its 
willingness  to  furnish  information  1  if  the  information  desired 
be  such  as  to  justify  it  ’  and  ‘  so  far  as  the  good  of  the  public 
service  ....  will  warrant,’  but  its  decision  on  these 
questions  must  be  made  when  each  application  is  received  and 
is  not  to  be  governed  by  any  such  general  rules  as  were  set 
forth  in  its  letter  of  November  2nd,  1899;  so  that  precisely 
the  same  data  may  be  furnished  at  one  time  and  denied  at 
another,  or  granted  to  one  applicant  and  refused  to  the  next. 
Moreover,  the  information  furnished  on  any  subject  will 
be,  not  necessarily  the  whole  truth,  as  shown  by  the  Commis¬ 
sion’s  records,  but  the  truth  thus  shown  so  far  as  in  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  Commission,  ‘  the  good  of  the  public  service  will 
warrant  ’  its  disclosure. 

We  have  said  that  in  our  judgment  this  attitude,  when 
clearly  defined,  needs  no  comment,  but  one  word  may  be  fitly 
said  of  it  in  conclusion ;  this  was  not  the  attitude  of  the  Com¬ 
mission  when  the  present  Vice-President  elect  was  one  of  its 
members.  Then,  in  the  words  of  the  Eighth  Report,  ‘  the 
books  and  records  of  the  Commission  ’  were  ‘  open  to  any 
responsible  person’;  now,  under  the  minute  of  July  14,  ‘no 
person  who  is  not  a  member  of  the  Commission’s  force  shall 
have  access  to  its  files  and  records  ’ ;  then,  Mr.  Roosevelt  and 


14 


his  colleagues  said:  ‘No  fraud  can  be  committed  without 
leaving  a  record  by  which  it  can  be  found  out  ’ ;  now,  such  a 
record  may  perhaps  be  left,  but  whether  its  exists  or  not,  no 
one  but  ‘  a  member  of  the  Commission’s  force  ’  can  know, 
and  whether  the  fraud  shall  be  found  out  by  the  public  de¬ 
pends  on  the  Commission’s  judgment  as  to  how  far  ‘  the 
good  of  the  public  service  will  warrant  ’  letting  in  the  light  of 
day.  In  their  Eighth  Report,  above  quoted,  the  Commission¬ 
ers  then  in  office  spoke  like  men  conscious  that  they  were 
doing  their  duty  and  having  the  courage  born  of  such  con¬ 
sciousness  ;  on  the  language  of  the  majority  of  the  present 
Commission  we  have  already  declared  comment  needless. 

Very  respectfully  submitted, 

Charles  J.  Bonaparte, 
Edward  Cary, 

Frederick  L.  Siddons, 

Special  Committee. 


